One thing for certain is that ‘violent religion of peacers’ aren’t going away and it appears that, contrary to Obama’s claims, they’ve become very emboldened in the last few years. Check it out …

Former vice president Dick Cheney believes that a terrorist attack even worse than the destruction of the twin towers on September 11, 2001 is probable before the end of the decade.

Cheney appeared on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show on Tuesday and was asked if he thought the United States would ‘get through this decade without another massive attack on the homeland.’

‘I doubt it,’ Cheney said. ‘I think there will be another attack and the next time I think it’s likely to be far deadlier than the last one. You can just imagine what would happen if somebody could smuggle a nuclear device, put it in a shipping container, and drive it down the beltway outside Washington D.C.’

Hewitt wondered if the government could continue in such a scenario and Cheney recalled a Cold War era plan for constitutional government in the event of a nuclear attack.

How President Gowdy Solved the Middle East Problem

Back in 2021, right after Trey Gowdy’s inauguration, Muslims at first fled away from the cities of Mecca and Medina on the Arabian peninsula, because they generally sensed what was coming. And they sensed correctly–Gowdy blasted those places to smithereens with a dual nuclear bomb strike.

Immediately, of course, Muslims across the globe rioted and struck as hard as they could at any and all possible targets–both military and civilian, particularly in Western cities–with their suicide bombs, automatic weapons, arson, assassinations, and various other tactics.

The carnage around the globe was extensive and awful, however not nearly as bad as it might have been had not Western populations and governments already become so fed up, overall, with Islamic aggression and terrorism that they’d been doing a lot of prevention and pre-emptive preparation. An almost universal, lightning-fast crackdown minimized the death toll.

Police and military units deployed everywhere at top speed in the immediate aftermath of Gowdy’s devastation of the ultimate Islamic “holy” sites, and the enraged, foaming-at-the-mouth Muslims who massed in the streets of Western cities in response were unceremoniously mowed down by tactical units using whatever means necessary–drone strikes, helicopter gunships, mechanized and armored squads, you name it.

Problematic Muslim clerics and known jihad ringleaders living in Western countries, along with their already watchlisted followers and lesser-recognized adherents, were ruthlessly rounded up without a moment’s delay–not only by official units and personnel, but equally by citizen militias and vigilantes who realized an almost uniform, unwritten, across-the-board de facto deputation status. No one in any official capacity whatsoever even contemplated objecting to ordinary civilians joining in the effort to contain and defeat, with extreme prejudice, the imminent Islamic threat. Those jihadis who mounted any kind of fight to try to avoid being taken into custody were just killed instantly by overwhelming force. Numerous hostages, most unfortunately, were sometimes lost when their Islamic hostage-takers were summarily and hastily obliterated, lest the enemy think such a tactic would in any way further their jihad by weakening our resolve.

It was beneficial that so many governments had already undertaken the process of cleaning house with regard to the Islamic problem. Things had escalated so much and for so long that everyone in their right minds simply knew without a doubt that a modern Crusade was not only necessary, but was moreover the highest moral priority for civilized societies who wished to survive, in the end, against the sustained and savage aggression and violent onslaught waged increasingly for so many decades by bloodthirsty Muslim hordes.

Gowdy’s gambit of strikes against Mecca and Medina was, on the surface, symbolic, however it was extremely effective and ingenious in the strategic realm.

What took place after the strikes was exactly what Gowdy and his generals had anticipated, and the fact that they so carefully planned for the result, and for subsequent actions, is what made their strategy so brilliant.

As expected, and as the radioactive dust was still settling, it wasn’t long before virtually millions of Muslim warriors swarmed toward Mecca from around the world. Obviously, they saw the freshly vaporized site as that much more of a sacred rallying point; as the place to coalesce and “make their stand” for Islam, as Western forces maneuvered and feigned–pretending as if to want to move into, seize, hold, and occupy the Muslims’ holy wasteland.

Being mostly the regressive, inbred spawn of marriages between cousins (prevailing practice in Islamic societies), the Mohammedan armies just weren’t that bright to begin with–but now they seemed to glow that much more with the fervor of rabid, wild-eyed, screaming Islamic religiosity as they stupidly flocked and teemed en masse to the poisonously toxic area where the nuclear warheads had hit home.

That easily forecasted, brainless rush toward Mecca (in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. nuclear strike) by legions of the most hyper-rabid Islamic mujahideen from all corners of the globe accomplished two key goals: First, their aforementioned exposure to whatever degree of radioactive fallout, which need not really be explained in terms of its advantage to the civilized world. Second, it gave Gowdy’s generals and their allied counterparts from friendly countries such easy, ready targets, all assembled in one big sandbox, for continued tactical elimination, that it was very soon that the “soldiers of Allah” collectively realized their mistake. Almost all of them were basically wiped out in a matter of days, primarily from above.

Gowdy first deliberately drew them into the killing field, then killed them.

Once the non-Muslim world actually took the Muslim world up on its long-standing practice of all-out war, the war ended rather quickly.

It didn’t take long at all for the message to sink in, in the minds of Muslim leaders and followers worldwide: The paper tiger had burned up, replaced by a real tiger.

Try as the ayatollahs, muftis, sheiks, clerics, and would-be caliphs might, to rally the troops for ongoing and endless jihad against the infidels, they were beaten back and beaten down by every kind of laser-guided hellfire munition imaginable–until many of the remaining mosques began to be converted into Christian churches by desperate goatherders and merchants seeking a better way. Imams either fled, or shed their dirty nightshirts and traded them in for Joel Osteen designer togs, heeding the begging and beseeching of their communities’ plaintive pleas for a new chance at life, and renunciation of Islam in hopes that the laser-precision bombs and missiles might cease.

Pakistan’s nukes weren’t even part of the equation once Israel took them out (along with the Pakis’ almost entire command and control systems), simultaneous to Gowdy’s having blasted the black stone cube of Mecca into mere metaphysical “carbon credits” toward the heating and air conditioning costs of keeping Barack Hussein Obama housed in U.S. federal prison, according of course to the comforts befitting a convicted former American president.

Very few American servicemen’s lives or limbs were jeopardized or lost during the final decisive campaign to defeat Mohammedanism; almost none, in fact, compared with other global conflicts in recent history. All it took, really, was the will to use the tools at our disposal, to end an existential threat to us and to our children.

As for Islam, they still practice it in cults and sectors throughout the Middle East, and elsewhere around the world, but mainly it’s discussed in history books, and in articles online. Not too many surviving denizens of even its birthplace are interested in being associated with such a failed, vanquished, disreputable, and notoriously depraved ideology. Like Nazism, and like the doomed, kamikazeemperor-worship of Imperial Japan of the last century, it’s been sent to the dustbin where it belongs.

It is hard to imagine Margaret Thatcher complaining, as Mrs. Clinton did, that ‘it was all about my hair.’

DOROTHY RABINOWITZ

The past few weeks of Hillary Clinton‘s book tour have given Americans more than a modest whiff of what a future Clinton presidency would bring. Nothing has brought home with more immediacy the role we can expect gender to play in that administration—or more to the point, the focus on anti-women bias about which we would evidently be fated to hear a great deal.

That would come as a change, after what will by then have been eight years of a different ruling focus in the White House—that being, of course, the president’s race. Years in which Obama administration staff members, congressional allies and advocates in the political culture regularly nurtured the view—when they weren’t making outright accusations—that vociferous opposition to this president, and his policies, was largely fueled by white racism. Jay Rockefeller (D., W.Va.) just last month declared that opposition to ObamaCare came from people who don’t like the president “because maybe he’s the wrong color.”

Attorney General Eric Holder in turn delivered himself of bitter complaints to Al Sharpton‘s National Action Network in April about the lack of respect accorded him by a House committee. “What attorney general has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment? What president has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?” Barack Obama had barely taken office, which he could not have won without the vote of white America, when his attorney general charged that the American people were “a nation of cowards” in their dealings with race. Mr. Holder would go on to attack states attempting to curtail voter fraud, to refuse prosecution of members of the New Black Panther Party who had menaced white voters at a Philadelphia polling place, and to become, in all, the most racially polarizing attorney general in the nation’s history.

A Hillary Clinton administration would bring change, yes, but much about the change would feel familiar. We were given a small foretaste last week in a statement by Lanny Davis, former special counsel to Bill Clinton and indefatigable Hillary supporter. Mr. Davis had taken offense at the press description of Mrs. Clinton’s performance on a National Public Radio program—one that had not gone smoothly for her. He was offended at certain language that had been used to describe Mrs. Clinton’s reactions when the NPR interviewer questioned the consistency of her support for gay marriage. Reporters had described her as “testy,” “contentious” and “annoyed.” Mr. Davis opined that “had it been a man, the words ‘testy’ and ‘annoyed’ would not have been used.”

Mr. Davis’s reflexive discovery of insult to Mrs. Clinton—to women—in those words comes as no surprise. The idea that certain words are demeaning to women, because they’re deemed unlikely to be used about men, is by now deep-rooted political faith. Many people were doubtless unaware, until Mr. Davis brought the odd news, that testy is a word not used for men—that hitherto standard descriptive words and phrases might now be subjected to close examination and be rendered illegitimate on the grounds of their potential offensiveness to women.

None of this would come as a shock to anyone with experience of the speech codes and all similar products of the ideological fervor on the nation’s campuses today—institutions of learning where any text, any class reference, can be considered harassment or gender bias, should any student raise a claim of discomfort. That ideological fervor wasn’t going to be confined to universities and colleges, and it hasn’t been. Determining the words that may or may not be used to describe a woman candidate for the presidency is only its bare reflection—the beginning. We will be seeing that fervor full-blown should Mrs. Clinton win election to the White House.

In her conversation with Diane Sawyer on ABC, Mrs. Clinton herself recalled the unwelcome attention to her appearance during her travels as secretary of state. People mentioned her hair, the scrunchie she wore to keep it in place. Try as one may, it’s impossible to imagine Margaret Thatcher complaining to an interviewer, as Mrs. Clinton did, that “it was all about my hair.”

There are other signs that the tone of a Hillary Clinton presidency would bear strong resemblance to that of Mr. Obama’s. Under questioning during her recent media interviews, the former secretary of state deflected all challenging questions—when any were put—with her characteristic unyielding aplomb. Whether queried on al Qaeda’s triumphant march to power despite the administration’s long-continued assurances that al Qaeda was a spent force—or about disaster in Bashar Assad’s Syria, or her own role in the Benghazi catastrophe in Libya—she exuded a serene assurance. And with it, the faintest hint of amazement that such queries should actually be put to her—a cheery puzzlement that anyone should think she had anything to do with what might have gone wrong.

“Let’s talk about what was accomplished,” she briskly instructed Diane Sawyer, who had asked about Syria and al Qaeda and Benghazi.

Mrs. Clinton could not at that moment have sounded more like the current resident of the White House. Or more like a future one who would be, much like her predecessor, a leader of boundless self-confidence. One also inclined, when presented with the evidence of catastrophic policies of her own making, to wonder what any of that had to do with her.

You Are Not Going To Believe What Oprah Just Said About Michelle Obama…

This is a behind the scenes look…

In a follow-up to his bestselling Obama exposé, ‘The Amateur’ author Edward Klein is back with a new book detailing the animosity between the Clintons and the Obamas.

One particularly interesting passage in the book, titled ‘Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas,’ includes quotes from media mogul Oprah Winfrey, in which she lets loose on the current first lady and Obama advisor Valarie Jarrett.

“They’re always badgering you for something,” Klein quotes Winfrey as asserting. “I’ve spent much of my life fending off powerful and not-so powerful people who want things from me. But these two women are something else again. They’re walking agendas. Their wish list never stops.”

According to Klein’s account, Winfrey described spending time with the pair as “tiresome.”

Furthermore, the book alleges the one-time vocal Obama supporter now feels “slighted” by the first family.

Klein cites one of Winfrey’s friends who claims the treatment she has received since Obama’s inauguration has not only been “thoughtless,” but “unfair and hurtful.”

In contrast, Klein concludes Winfrey is far more loyal to expected 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. While fielding endorsement requests from potential nominees including Joe Biden, the book states Winfrey is considering joining forces with a Clinton candidacy.

“I have a much warmer relationship with Hillary than I do with either Michelle or Barack,” Winfrey reportedly said. “The Clintons make me feel at ease 100 percent of the time. But even when the Obamas think they are being charming, they hold you at arm’s length. They make me jumpy, even when they obviously don’t mean to.”

“Bill and Hillary have both had long talks with Oprah,” Klein quotes one source in his book. “They’ve made it clear they’re planning a run for the White House and would appreciate her support.”

The insider further states that the Clintons hope to receive the same enthusiastic endorsement Winfrey gave Obama in 2008.

“You said it was stable.”

Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski pressed President Obama on the deteriorating situation in Iraq: “Is this part of reality going back into Iraq? You said that the war was ended in Iraq. You said al-Qaeda was decimated. You said it was stable.”

“It was,” Obama replied. “But just because something is stable two years ago or four years ago doesn’t mean it’s stable right now. It is ultimately up to the Iraqi leadership to pull the politics of the country back together again. That doesn’t mean that we re-occupy Iraq.”

Watch: Rep. Jim Jordan Takes His Turn To Roast IRS

Koskinen’s seat has to be getting pretty toasty..

We sure hope John Koskinen is OK with heat. Because he is getting grilled long and hard byrepresentatives, and it’s only a matter of time before legal action takes place.

This time, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) was grillmaster during a House committee hearing, repeatedly asking why IRS Commissioner John Koskinen waited nearly two months to tell Congress that the agency lost Lois Lerner’s crucial emails due to a hard drive “crash.”

Koskinen claimed he didn’t tell Congress, the White House, the FBI, the Inspector General, or any other outside agencies about losing the emails until the IRS’s report last week, after Congress asked them about it.

The Congressman later asked: at which point does this withholding of “critical information” become an obstruction of justice?

“We’ve been after this for 13 months,” Jordan said. “We subpoenaed six months ago for this, you had a hearing on the 26th where everyone went after you and said ‘We want all the emails,’ and you assured us you’d get them all to us; and then you learned you can’t, and you don’t tell anybody?”

Last fall, a top Obama Homeland Security adviser generated controversy when he wrote that the U.S. Constitution was “Islamically compliant.”

Mohamed Elibiary returned to the topic in a Saturday morning Twitter post: “… I said America was an Islamic country not a Muslim country. Pls study up on the difference b4 attacking me.” The post appears to have been deleted from Elibiary’s Twitter feed.

Elibiary declined to explain what he meant when the Investigative Project wrote to him asking for clarification. The tweets are puzzling considering that there were 2.6 million Muslims in the United States as of the 2010 census – roughly less than .2 percent of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims.

A source close to Elibiary told the IPT, however, that the Homeland Security adviser meant to say that he feels there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution and the American system that runs contrary to Islam.

Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, rejected the theory.

Republicans In This State Just Took Steps To Impeach Obama

“I’ve got a thick book on impeachable offenses…”

According to recent reports, South Dakota Republicans joined together to pass a resolution demanding Barack Obama be impeached. Among the reasons listed is the recent release of five dangerous terrorists in a deal with the Taliban to return Bowe Bergdahl, a hostage described by his fellow soldiers as an Army deserter.

The state’s Republican Party drafted the resolution to convince “our U.S. Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president of the United States.”

In a relatively close 191-176 vote, party delegates approved the resolution sponsored by Sioux Falls Republican Allen Unruh. In addition to the Taliban trade, the document listed allegedly impeachable offenses including the misrepresentation of ObamaCare and the Environmental Protection Agency’s targeting of America’s coal-fired power plants.

“I’ve got a thick book on impeachable offenses of the president,” Unruh asserted.

Butte County resident Larry Klipp also supported the measure, saying he “will pray for” anyone who failed to see the “traitorous scandals” that have defined this administration.

It remains to be seen whether the resolution will have any bearing among the state’s legislators. South Dakota has but one U.S. Representative, Kristi Noem, who has not been receptive to the idea of pursuing impeachment.

A spokesperson for the congresswoman indicated that she “believes the best way for Congress to hold the president accountable is to continue aggressive committee oversight and investigations” into the aforementioned scandals.

She is far from the only state Republican unwilling to support the idea. David Wheeler, one of the dissenting delegates in the resolution vote, contended that pursuing impeachment would essentially be a political move that would ultimately only damage the GOP.

“By doing this, we would look petty,” he concluded, “like we can’t achieve our political goals through the political process.”

Larry Eliason also disagreed with the move, though he admitted he has disagreed with every decision Obama has made during his presidency – with the exception of his pet adoption.

The actions of the Obama Administration have gone unchecked for far too long and inaction is no longer an option. It is our responsibility to hold Obama accountable for his repeated failures in office.

Of course, this raises the obvious question: Why did the American military train dangerous Islamic militants?

Answer: Because they were being trained with the intent of overthrowing the Syrian government and President Bashar al-Assad.

Jordanian officials claimed these Syrian rebels were screened to ensure they had no ties to Al-Qaeda or any other overly radical Islamic group. They also said that this training had no intention of being used in Iraq.

However, these good foreign policy intentions have backfired on the Obama Administration in a big way. Especially since the President declared an end to combat operations in Iraq nearly four years ago.

It appears that these U.S.-trained forces were better prepared than their Iraqi counterparts. Many American-trained Iraqi soldiers threw down their weapons and uniforms or didn’t offer much resistance to the invading Islamic forces.

The Jordanian officials who spoke to World Net Daily are also concerned this sectarian violence will spill over into their country.

It’s hard to put the outrage about this scandal into words, but we’ll give it a shot. Based on the numerous scandals before this one, the Obama Administration is the most corrupt — and either the most incompetent or treasonous — in American history.

NESTOR DAN: SHE IS A REAL TEACHER!!! In September of 2005, on the first day of school, Martha Cothren, a History teacher at Robinson High School in Little Rock , did something not to be forgotten. On the first day of school, with the permission of the school superintendent, the principal and the building supervisor, she removed all of the desks in her classroom. When the first period kids entered the room they discovered that there were no desks. > > > ‘Ms. Cothren, where are our desks?’ > > > > > > She replied, ‘You can’t have a desk until you tell me how you earn the right to sit at a desk.’ > > > They thought, ‘Well, maybe it’s our grades.’ ‘No,’ she said. > > > ‘Maybe it’s our behavior.’ She told them, ‘No, it’s not even your behavior.’ > > > > > > And so, they came and went, the first period, second period, third period. Still no desks in the classroom. Kids called their parents to tell them what was happening and by early afternoon television news crews had started gathering at the school to report about this crazy teacher who had taken all the desks out of her room. > > > > > > The final period of the day came and as the puzzled students found seats on the floor of the desk-less classroom. Martha Cothren said, ‘Throughout the day no one has been able to tell me just what he or she has done to earn the right to sit at the desks that are ordinarily found in this classroom. Now I am going to tell you.’ > > > > > > At this point, Martha Cothren went over to the door of her classroom and opened it. Twenty-seven (27) U.S. Veterans, all in uniform, walked into that classroom, each one carrying a school desk. The Vets began placing the school desks in rows, and then they would walk over and stand alongside the wall. By the time the last soldier had set the final desk in place those kids started to understand, perhaps for the first time in their lives, just how the right to sit at those desks had been earned. > > > > > > Martha said, ‘You didn’t earn the right to sit at these desks. These heroes did it for you. They placed the desks here for you. They went halfway around the world, giving up their education and interrupting their careers and families so you could have the freedom you have. Now, it’s up to you to sit in them. It is your responsibility to learn, to be good students, to be good citizens. They paid the price so that you could have the freedom to get an education. Don’t ever forget it.’ > > > > > > By the way, this is a true story. And this teacher was awarded Veterans of Foreign Wars Teacher of the Year for the State of Arkansas in 2006. She is the daughter of a WWII POW.